Thursday, April 9, 2015

Avoiding the European Conflict

Russia has always been a nation keen to exert
influence. No better witness than history itself. However, with the end of the
Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, many thought they
were hearing the melodious sound of peace emerging from a conflict that began
when Europe still lay in ruins. Genocide followed too swiftly for real European
peace to prevail and, once more, the world realized the complexities and
hazards of power change.

The 2000s brought with it, finally, a peace that we
now look back upon. Europe, spearheaded by a German economic powerhouse, was
expanding to include new members like Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary and the Czech
Republic, all previously part of the USSR or satellite states. After the faint
economic recovery, Ukrainians saw closer ties with the European Union as the
primary constituent for their own progress. Viktor Yanukovych's
Presidency was marred by widespread speculation of vote-rigging after the
results of the 2010 Presidential elections placed him ahead of Prime Minister Yulia
Tymoshenko. Understandably, countless Ukrainians were angered
when, in 2013, President Yanukovych turned
away from talks with Europe and, instead, hammered out a deal with
President Putin to buy 15 billion dollars worth of Ukrainian debt. An escalation such as occurred
in Ukraine, from protests to Russian intervention, is truly a sign that
President Putin had been intent and waiting for the opportune moment.
Nevertheless, the magnitude of the ensuing protests had been
unprecedented. For Ukrainians, the matter
wasn't as simple as "who to trade with". It was a matter of wanting
to move forward and leaving behind the far-flung association it had with
Russia. Stronger economic ties with Europe opened other possibilities, such
as Ukraine becoming an EU member. Stronger economic ties with Russia weren't nearly as
promising. The issue of self-determination
has once again given rise to violence, as Europe has so often witnessed. Today,
it is estimated that approximately 6,000 people have been killed during
the conflict. This number should abash the practice of appeasement.
Further, Russia's interference in Ukraine should highlight that a
rhetoric-heavy approach to diplomacy will achieve little with President Putin
at the helm. The most tragic moment during
this crisis remains the shooting-down of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, which
claimed the lives of all 283 onboard. This colossal mistake on the part of
the foolhardy pro-Russian separatists will, ultimately, serve as a potent reminder
of the broader impact of regional crises. A fragile ceasefire has been in
place since February of this year. However, the issue is once more on the brink
of escalation with Amnesty International reporting the execution of
four Ukrainian government soldiers (April 9th). With this
development, and with pro-Russian separatists already having signaled
they're ready to fight once more, an urgent re-evaluation of the Western
response is needed. Ukraine has had an IPAP
(Individual Partnership Action Plan) with NATO since 2002, which was
thrown off track by the Presidency of Viktor
Yanukovych. However, Ukraine now views NATO membership as the only plausible
way to fend off a further Russian advance, which would wedge Russian influence
deeper into Ukrainian territory. It is likely that the next week will be
the most critical. What is clear is that the
response of the West needs to be more decisive than sanctions. Dialogue with
Russia and the pro-Russian separatists cannot be ruled out, as it has already
achieve a ceasefire. Yet, it has been short-lived and violated. The west now
needs to prepare for further violence in Eastern Europe and weigh its military
options, even before Ukraine has formalized an agreement with NATO.
Otherwise, we will see a bulkier Russian presence in Ukraine and a
more prolonged conflict with more casualties.